Pulse Secure Desktop ClientApplication · Pulsesecure
CVE-2020-8250
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA vulnerability in the Pulse Secure Desktop Client (Linux) < 9.1R9 could allow local attackers to escalate privilege.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceA local privilege escalation vulnerability exists in Pulse Secure Desktop Client for Linux versions prior to 9.1R9. An attacker with local access to a system running the vulnerable client can exploit improper privilege management to gain elevated (likely root) privileges. This is a local attack vector requiring no network access.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Pulse Secure Desktop ClientApplication
< 9.1= 9.1CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify Pulse Secure Desktop Client is installedCheck common installation paths or package manager. On Debian-based systems: 'dpkg -l | grep -i pulse'. On RHEL-based systems: 'rpm -qa | grep -i pulse'. Also check directories: ls /opt/pulse/, ls /usr/local/pulse/Affected if Pulse Secure Desktop Client for Linux is found on the system
-
Identify the installed version numberRun the pulse client binary with version flag: '/opt/pulse/pulse --version' or '/usr/local/pulse/pulse --version'. Alternatively query the package: 'dpkg -s pulsesecure-pulse' or 'rpm -qi pulsesecure-pulse'Affected if Version cannot be determined or shows a version <= 9.1
-
Compare version against affected rangeThe affected versions are < 9.1 and = 9.1. The fixed version is 9.1R9 or later. If the installed version is 9.1 or any version below 9.1R9, the system is vulnerableAffected if Installed version is 9.1 or lower (before 9.1R9)
-
Confirm vulnerability scope - local access requirementThis is a local privilege escalation flaw. The attacker needs shell access to the system first. Check if untrusted users have local access to systems running the vulnerable clientAffected if The system has the vulnerable client version AND allows local untrusted user access
A system is affected if Pulse Secure Desktop Client for Linux is installed with version 9.1 or lower (before the 9.1R9 patch) and the system permits local user access.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor data9.1
Upgrade Pulse Secure Desktop Client for Linux to version 9.1R9 or later to remediate this vulnerability. Organizations should inventory all Linux systems with the Pulse Secure client installed and deploy the patched version.
Fix this in Pulse Secure Desktop Client
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-8250 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-8250 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data